How do Germans feel about WWII, NOW?

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn:

Saying that because Jews from captured territories were shipped off to be killed the troops who captured those territories in the course of proper military campaigns are war criminals is just ludicrous IMO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fionn,

as I said, we won't agree, and it is always nice to see other people being able to respect a different point of view. Now if you take the time to re-read my post, you as a very intelligent and learned individual will realise that all I tried to point out was that the war effort did not happen in a political vacuum. But I know you already think I am a hypocrit, so you probably find it difficult to accept that I am indeed capable of complex reasoning. Never mind.

I am aware of the moral shortcomings of other countries' war efforts, but that was not the issue here, Germany's was. And nowhere did I make blanket statements about war criminals. That minister actually did, but I am sure that on re-reading my original post you will realise that I quoted him. I have no final opinion on this topic, I am still thinking about it.

Good to see that your mind is made up though. No need to correct your wrong statements about my original post or to apologise for accusing me of peddling "utter crap" - that's quite alright. And thanks for the history lesson, but believe me it is quite wasted on me unless you can bring something really new to the table.

------------------

Andreas

[Schugger]

Actually i feared the worst when this thread appeared ont the top of the board but it seems that all people posting here are up for a serious discussion which i don't want to miss.

Were to start? So many things to say but still fighting with the language...

When you ask how the germans feel today ( i.e. the younger generation) you have to keep in mind that there was no public discussion about WW2 in germany for about 25 years after the war was over.

The generation who participated and survived the war was just to busy to survive in and rebuild a country which laid in ashes and tried to forget what happened. When the first post war generation growed up, there were quite interested about the involvement of their parents in the Nazi regime and have to find out that even high ranking leaders in politic, economy, universties, etc. had something of a "black" history. It was a very special kind of generation conflict which results in nothing productive as the Younguns vilified the oldies in general and the latter ones refused to discuss that matter any further.

This was really a missed opportunity and i think our country is still in a somewhat bad condition because it failed to start or even finish a fruitless debate about it's own recent history.

So back to your questions:

The conflict was one of the greatest BS that ever happened to humanity and i don't think that the major part of the oldies are anti-american or are still Nazis.

Does my post make any sense?

Schugger

------------------

Es gibt Tage da verliert man und Tage da gewinnen die anderen.

[jeffjones]

I don't know if anyone brought this up, as I admittedly didn't read all the responses here, but we could just as well ask "How do Americans feel about slavery, NOW?"

I don't see much difference. Both involved stealing the lives of the innocent. America is no saint either (I'm American). The whole friggin' world is bent toward evil.

[Goanna]

Fionn wrote:

Deathcamps WERE used to kill gypsies and jews ( and others) in captured territories BUT common German soldiers didn't capture these territories with the aim of sending these guys back to deathcamps. They captured the territory cause they were good soldiers and followed orders. The higher ups were the ones who made the decisions to ship people off

to be shot or gassed or experimented on.

You are incorrect here, Fionn, and Andreas is very much on the mark, I feel. If you do further in depth reading and research on the subject, you will see that it was in the German governments plans from very early on (certainly documented evididence exists from 1938 onward) to capture territory for the purpose of eliminating the "undesirable" presence there. In 1941 and 1942 the einzatzcommando (sp?) were specifically used to do the dirty work following the initial capturing of territory. These units had special indoctrination and training to fit the purpose of the work they would be doing. However, from 1942 onward, it was found that the extermination work in Poland and the western part of the Soviet Union could be carried out by ordinary police battalions. These units were made up of ordinary Germans with little or no idealogical training. There is also evidence that people were not coerced to do the killing, and that asking to be excused from killing was allowed, and that being excused from the killing did not hurt a persons career in the military.

This is the history that I believe Andreas means needed some examination folowing WWII that it did not adequately receive. I believe that you are correct Fionn (and others) when you say that a persons individual actions are those that determine whether or not they are guilty.

I do not believe that any individual German, nor german society as a whole, should have lingering guilt over WWII or any of the actions that took place then unless they took part. However, I also believe that it is wrong to overlook the active role in genocide that a large number of German citizens took part in during the war. There was no separation between the prevailing cognitive reality of the military and society as a whole since the military was drawn from the society. The prevailing cognitive reality in German society at the time was highly antisemitic (as it was to some extent in other countries including the US and Britain). The main difference was that Germany had leaders who desired to pursue action based on their philosophy. People followed these leaders mainly because they shared their basic beliefs, as the evidence does not support the myths of coercion or "just following orders".

Clearly the present day levels of antisemitism (and other intolerance) in Germany are nothing like that in the 20s-40s, so they have little to feel guilty for as a result of WWII as long as they (and all other societies) continue to examine the means by which this type of intolerance can come to be and attempt to thwart it.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn:

BUT common German soldiers didn't capture these territories with the aim of sending these guys back to deathcamps. They captured the territory cause they were good soldiers and followed orders. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"In general, it is worth mentioning that all secondary virtues such as bravery, discipline, loyalty and perseverance only have validity as long as they are used in a good cause. When a positive cause becomes negative, these virtues become questionable."

Manfred Rommel, son of Field-Marshal Erwin Rommel in the introduction to the 1990 edition of 'Infantry Attacks". Manfred Rommel was born in 1928 and became the mayor of Stuttgart for the conservative CDU in the 1980s.

I think I can fully agree with that statement.

------------------

Andreas

[Fionn]

"you will see that it was in the German governments plans from very early on (certainly documented evididence exists from 1938 onward) to capture territory for the purpose of eliminating the "undesirable" presence there. "

I disagree with that. Germany didn't capture Russian territory OR Poland to annihilate the Jews. It captured that territory for geo-economic reasons. The genocide against Jewry and gypsies etc was just policy in invaded countries but it didn't cause the Germans to INVADE other countries.

Andreas,

Well, personally I believe that you CAN admire and look up to brave actions etc even when those are done in the service of a rather nasty cause.

By your token it would be tantamount to cheering the hollocaust if I were to say that the Waffen SS were, on the whole, a fearsome fighting force. That just strikes me as ridiculous.

Also, I'll note that I have a lot of these conversations with Germans. Very few people from other countries feel this way towards Germany if they have read even a little about WW2. I'd have to say that the Allied indoctrination of shame into the German populace must have worked very well on you and others of your age Andreas. it's a pity though.

[patboivin]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Goanna:

Fionn wrote:

The prevailing cognitive reality in German society at the time was highly antisemitic (as it was to some extent in other countries including the US and Britain).

[...]

Clearly the present day levels of antisemitism (and other intolerance) in Germany are nothing like that in the 20s-40s, so they have little to feel guilty for as a result of WWII as long as they (and all other societies) continue to examine the means by which this type of intolerance can come to be and attempt to thwart it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Canada doesn't have a good record either, for years during (and after) the war they refused to take in Jewish refugees from Europe.

People were really mixed up -- on the one hand they were appalled by what was happening, but on the other some saw national socialism as a way to fight the spread of communism.

To refuse access for refugees was, in my opinion, unforgivable. I am only 34 though, I don't understand the context all that well.

What I don't understand is why Canada is still so reluctant to expatriate war criminals from WW2, it doesn't make any sense to me, why would there be so much resistance on the part of the Federal bureaucracy.

[Cuchulainn]

On the Basis that this is a polite and tempered discussion, this is in the press today.

German academics outraged by award for 'Hitler apologist'

BY ROGER BOYES

"GERMAN historians are outraged after a top literary prize was awarded to a controversial academic who has sought to justify Hitler's anti-Semitism and play down the monstrosity of Nazi war crimes.

Ernst Nolte was awarded the Konrad Adenauer prize, normally given for works that "contribute to a better future", this month, provoking a dispute over revisionism in modern German history.

The academics' anger was heightened when Horst Moeller, the director of the highly respected Institute for Contemporary History, scandalised colleagues by praising Professor Nolte for his "life's work of high rank" and opening up the debate on wartime Germany.

Professor Nolte became an academic pariah in the 1980s when he suggested that Hitler and national socialism presented a distorted mirror image of Stalin and Bolshevism and to merge unacceptably his anti-Semitism with his anti-communism. Professor Nolte has not wavered from his views despite a barrage of criticism. "The Holocaust is indissolubly linked not only to Hitler's hostility to Bolshevism but also to the war against the Soviet Union in general," he said.

Professor Nolte, who also emphasised that Hitler was not "absolutely evil", is not a revisionist in the manner of David Irving - he does not deny the scope of the Holocaust. He is, however, by most definitions, an apologist for Hitler. To the surprise of politicians as well as historians, Professor Nolte was awarded the Konrad Adenauer prize by the conservative Germany Foundation. The speech was delivered by Horst Moeller, director of the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich.

Professor Moeller wanted to spice his praise of Professor Nolte with criticism, but somehow only the praise seemed to trickle through. As a result it appears to many historians that the Institute has given its seal of approval to Professor Nolte's views.

This is more than an innocent slip-up. Throughout German history departments there are already arguments about repositioning the importance of Hitler. Some reduce the significance of national socialism by comparing it with supposedly totalitarian regimes such as that of the East German Communists. One Dresden historian questioned the morality of trying to kill Hitler in a crowded beer cellar in 1938. The would-be assassin, he said, had no right to risk the lives of innocent people.

The Institute of Contemporary History had to fight for funding after the war when there was no political interest in raking over the ashes of national socialism. Since then however, it has grown into a major influential institute employing 80 academics. Its studies of the social hierarchy in Auschwitz changed the way that people looked at victimhood in concentration camps.

Most controversially, however, it supervised and edited the publication of 20 volumes of diaries written by Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister. This provided an essential source for scholars of national socialism - but also made the institute a magnet for revisionists such as Mr Irving who were keen to adjust the public picture of Hitler.

In his speech, Professor Moeller emphasised that he did not share Professor's Nolte's basic thesis that the Nazis were an understandable reaction to Bolshevism. However, he did call for academic tolerance and a serious discussion rather than demonisation of Ernst Nolte's works.

Unfortunately the only discussion that has ensued is about the integrity of the historical profession in Germany. How far can German historians discuss Hitler in a normal way - advancing positive as well as negative elements - without seeming to be Nazi sympathisers?

Hitler, it seems, cannot be buried in academe."

[Simon Fox]

Fionn,

I am sure that most of us here are very aware of your attitude on this subject from previous posts. I must say that I am dismayed that what was a quite civil and interesting discussion has been undermined by your condescending comments about Andreas's views. Whatever your own views they are certainly open to discussion however "ludicrous" you may find those of others. However many people you have spoken too I do not see that translates to a broad generalisation of the views of a populace.

I am in no position to discuss the current views of Germans but I do know from my reading that many Germans at the time including those in the armed forces were deeply troubled by their countries war of aggression eg Weider's (sp?) "Stalingrad: Memories and Reassessments". A number of them took a moral stand and refused to do their "duty", they paid with their lives. To my thinking they are the real heroes.

Good post Goanna. Didn't think the old 'lizard' had it in him.

[windstarz]

Here is my 2cents worth. If you read the history of world war 1 you see how world 2 came on the scene. When a country is in disarray like Germany was the door is opened for people like Hitler to fill the void. I am sure most Germans didn't feel like they had a lot to lose and early on Hitler did build Germany up an put people to work. Soldiers by and large follow orders or suffer the consequences. Before anyone gets on their high horse morally they should remember that where one is born is the major factor determining which side they are fighting for. I dare say that most of us if born in Germany at that time period would have ended up as German soldiers. Of course this is a general statement and there are exceptions to every rule but I think it is an accurate estimate IMHO.

[Guest bratboy]

Just thought I would pipe in with my two cents worth. I spent several years growing up in Germany, have visted it several times since and even have German god parents. I experienced very little in the way of ill feelings toward me as an American. In fact one of my godparents had very fond memories of Americans, even though half her family had been killed by them. Even as a child she understood that in war death was inevetable. Her fondness stemmed from the deeds that Americans did in the post war years. The Marshall plan rebuilt Germany and set into place a much firmer democracy. As for feeling any collective shame, I believe that there should be none, just an overwhelming desire to never see the likes of Nazi Germany again. After the war, the US contacted a few psychologists to determine what made people do horrible things to others. The quick run down on the experiment had a "normal" person as another man a series of questions, when the person answered incorrectly the test giver delivered a small electric shock. With each additional incorrect answer the shock intensity was increased to potentially lethal levels. Mind you that the test taker was not actually given shocks, he just pretended to be shocked. The shocker was clearly labeled, and the upper levels of voltage were labeled as "dangerous" etc. The results of this test showed that over 70% of the people would go all the way to the highest level of charge, they would protest and get nervous but nonetheless they would continue. The scary part of this is that the volunteers came from all walks of life, educators, doctors, truck drivers, cooks, etc. No group stood out from one another. Anyway my point was that people will generally do what an authority figure tells them to do as long as it doesn't endanger themselves. Never underestimate the power of rationalization.

Thats my opinion, however badly stated

Brian Fowler

[Major Tom]

I think that the reason for the problem of expatriating War Criminals (here in Canada) goes on our disagreement of capital punishment. These individuals are now Canadian citizens, and we do not feel that any nation has a right to kill Canadian (let alone any other citizen of the world) no matter what the crime. Many of these individuals would be facing certain execution. It isn't neccessarily the fact that we don't want War Criminals to be prosecuted, it is the fact that we don't want people executed. (There is no need to get into the deathpenalty debate, that is not the argument)

To blame Canada for ill treatment of Jews individually is like blaming only America for having international policy revolving around oil. There was NO nation before, and even after the war that welcomed the Jewish refugees from Europe. Jews were even killed in large numbers by Poles who were suprised and angered at the fact that they weren't all killed off by the Germans. What should have happened, to make the present world a much better place, was to have the Jewish refugees emigrate to America and Canada instead of creating a nation in the Middle East. Unfortunately, we, the Americans and the European's didn't allow them entrance.

Listen to this argument paraphrased from the movie "Clerks"....

-Have you ever thought of the poor contract construction workers in "Star Wars" on the second death star that got wasted when it blew up got a raw deal?

-What do you mean?

-Well, a station that large doesn't build itself, and, it was only half done when it was finally destroyed, so, you got to think that there must have been a large numbers of workers still on the station. They didn't have a political agenda, they were only just trying to do their job so they could feed their family and got blasted for it.

-Well, they knew the risks when they started working for the evil Imperial Empire, so, they got what they deserved.

The moral of the argument was, an INDIVIDUAL'S goodness is irrelavent when they are taking part in achieving a greater evil. This is the argument that Germanboy is trying to stress. It doesn't make the INDIVIDUAL evil, but, it also doesn't make their actions GOOD.

There are also MANY historical documents, and personal accounts at the time that the general population (including soldiers) in Germany was well aware of what was going on in the Concentration Camps.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn:

Andreas,

Well, personally I believe that you CAN admire and look up to brave actions etc even when those are done in the service of a rather nasty cause.

By your token it would be tantamount to cheering the hollocaust if I were to say that the Waffen SS were, on the whole, a fearsome fighting force. That just strikes me as ridiculous.

Also, I'll note that I have a lot of these conversations with Germans. Very few people from other countries feel this way towards Germany if they have read even a little about WW2. I'd have to say that the Allied indoctrination of shame into the German populace must have worked very well on you and others of your age Andreas. it's a pity though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fionn,

I am quite glad that we have moved beyond the level of personal insults for the moment. I can however only recommend that you read my posts again. I clearly state that I am not ashamed, so I don't really think you need to pity me for that.

Secondly, I completely agree that some units of the Waffen SS were a fearsome fighting force. We both know that other units were a complete waste. I have done my reading on that. Where you get the idea that in my opinion making this statement is tantamount to cheering the Holocaust is beyond me. I never said that, and I begin to think that you by now have a certain opionion of me, throwing me into the apologist camp of Germans, and run down that line of argument. Well, you are wrong on that. As I said before, my reasoning is more complex than that, maybe you should just try to deal with it on its own merits.

I am well impressed with my grand-father's and other German soldiers ability as fighting men. That does not keep me from thinking about the implications that their actions had - i.e. prolonging the suffering of innocent people and propping up a criminal regime. That is a completely different level, and it is a question that moral philosophers can probably argue about a great deal. I think you can not take their actions out of this context, and I believe my grand-father himself realises that, although he would not put it into those words.

A very simple example. A totalitarian government somewhere has the policy of killing opposition politicians that it does not like. It does that through having them secretly shot in their homes by a marksman. This marksman is a master of his craft. Every single shot is drilled right where he wants it, he is the best shot in the world. In each and every case he receives an order to kill the victim, and he has to fear reprisals if he does not carry it out. Can you admire him for being the best shot in the world? Surely, there is nothing wrong with that. Should you be troubled about the use he is putting his skills to? I would say you should. Does the fact that he received orders and is threatened himself change that? Not for me. And maybe there lies the root of our disagreement. And I don't think we are going to solve that, because there is no universal truth out there that you or I could suddenly discover.

I realise that this is going OT in a thread that is already OT, so apologies to everybody. So to bring it back on topic at least a bit. When you ask how Germans feel about it now, Cpt. Manieri, I would say that there is no general feeling, because a lot of the discussion is only now happening. This is because 55 years is not that long, and a lot of the soldiers who fought are still around, making it difficult to address these questions. The debate still had a lingering impact on German foreign policy when it came to the question of what to do about Kosovo. And that showed a deep rift going and uneasyness within German society. It might take many more years for the German society to get to grips with it, if that will ever be possible.

------------------

Andreas

[JWorthing]

I think the idea concerning the Waffen SS and admiring them for their fighting skills and separating whatever atrocities they did (if they did any, I haven't read too much yet to be an expert) is hard to accept. I think those two go hand in hand. It's a matter of principal. I cannot admire someone or something if it is connected with something evil. I can't just seperate the two.

Just my opinion, so don't come down on me too hard, Fionn.

and NCrawler, I agree with your statements about not feeling guilty over ancestors' actions but I feel one must never forget one's history. Not just the bad but the good. Being aware, I feel, can only make one more responsible.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

There are also MANY historical documents, and personal accounts at the time that the general population (including soldiers) in Germany was well aware of what was going on in the Concentration Camps.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is actually quite correct. Many Germans pretended they did not know about what went on. The argument here is that they could have known and that they could have protested, but they chose to do neither. There is at least one documented case from early on when the deportations started where people protested and got away with it, stopping deportation for the time being. While a lot of the larger death camps were out of the way, many of them had out-camps, close to German towns and cities. The Germans in these places could see the prisoners being marched to work every day, and they could observe the treatment they received on those marches. Also, German Jews were very much integrated into society, they did not live in Ghettos. Nobody has ever been able to explain to me how the population did not notice that their neighbours vanished, or why they did not wonder where they went. I find it simply not creditable when I am told that nobody could know about what was going on. That is underestimating the power of the grapevine IMO. But that is for those people who stood by to live with, not for me to judge.

As was said before, the real heroes and the real bravery came from those who refused to participate and paid for it with their lives. At the same time, again as was said before, most of us would most likely have entered the Wehrmacht, given the choice between that and prison/death. I probably would have. But that does not bar me from having an opionion now, as long as I don't get onto a high moral horse and fail to acknowledge the constraints to choice that people were facing then.

------------------

Andreas

[Manfred]

It's been more than 50 years ago since America went to war with Germany. My question is, how do Germans feel about the whole conflict? What do they think? Do some their elders still hold anti-American sediment and pro-nazi ideals?

Hello to all,

I´d like to throw in my two Pfennige.

First let me tell that I´m not that good in writing english, though I can read well.

My english knowledge mostly comes from history books and modelling magazines. So I take a trip on a minefield, aware to be misunderstood any second.

I used to grow up near Ramstein AFB located

near Kaiserslautern or "K-town". So I was used to seeing american military in the youth.

Think, that also started my interest, for a little boy jets and tanks in the neighbourhood have something. Back to your question. As someone already pointed out german tv has tremendous difficulty presenting history in any objective way.

So a lot of people don´t look these programs

anymore. Even a documentary about Frederick

the great inevitably has nazi flags near the end. As to sentiments, one or two of the elder show them. They usually think about the US airforce here. I have heard a lot of people of my mothers generation (she was born

in `37) and older express disgust about the

bombings and the dreaded Jabos (fighter bombers). General consensus is they should not have strafed

single soldiers, civilians, children and, as happened near Ramstein AFB in ´45 a standing medical train

full of wounded from the western front. You usually hear "They were war criminals and should be punished". On the other side

I think a lot of french and polish people think the same way about the german Luftwaffe. My granddads were on the eastern front during the later war. Mum´s daddy got

a kick in the backside as a first US contact.

But then again he was in slovakian hands at wars end handed over to the americans and preferred getting kicked in his a** instead of enjoying slovakian hospitality.

As far as I know they were not involved in crimes, but who can say with certainty.

Most people I know don´t have any sentiments

about americans re: the second world war, only too aware what happened in the german name.

My own thougth is that I certainly would not have been in the resistance. I would not have had the guts to do so. Nor would all those people telling the old generation "You should have done something against nazism".

When I see what people here and now do to keep their job or to make money what would they do if their precious little lives would be endangered ?

This was the blackest moment in human history

and while painful for me, as I also see the german losses (and they are not the faceless dummkopfs of some poor war movie)the allied soldiers liberated germany. And that´s where I live today without the fear my mom had during the whole war. Fear of the SA, fear of the SS, fear of the wounded, fear of the corpses, fear of the bombers and, at first, fear of the US soldiers. It was her single feeling for most of her childhood.

Manfred

[Jarmo]

I for one feel that an individual living today, should feel shame for the atrocities his countrymen have committed generations before.

I'm not talking about becoming a monk and rolling in ashes. Just a basic realization of what *we* did so long ago was wrong and must never happen again.

If the past is just put behind and forgotten, in a manner of "I didn't do it", the mistakes made will be done again.

And I'm not just talking about Germany,

just about every nation has something dark and shameful in it's history. For us finns it was the ending of our civil war. Mass executions of the losing reds with little in the way of trials are something to never forget and never repeat.

Hey, that was my first post without smilers. how odd.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Manfred:

Hello to all,

I´d like to throw in my two Pfennige.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Manfred, and welcome to the board - you certainly have chosen an interesting thread to introduce yourself.

------------------

Andreas

[kunstler]

I gotta agree with Germanboy. He has a pretty reasonable and balanced view, from what I can see.

I am Canadian but of Austrian heritage. The German's I know feel bad about what happened but don't like it being connected to who they are. Most of them are as repulsed by it as the rest of us.

After the war there were hundreds of thousands of SS veterans and, I believe, millions of former Nazi party members. The indoctrination they were subjected to did not disappear overnight. While a few nazis were hanged, many others took up positions in the West German government.

Most Germans were glad to be in American hands. Very, very few of the millions of prisoners in Russia ever made it back.

In exchange for cooperation against the red menace, the German government pressed for the release of people incarcerated for war crimes (such as Pieper and Dietrich, who served only 2 or 3 years).

Gehlin, the chief of intelligence in Nazi Germany for the Eastern Front, was put in charge of the West German intelligence agency. He used hundreds of former gestapo and SS agents on his staff. These were not the nicest of people, but then the cold war was in full swing.

These Nazis often played the East against the West for their own benefit and worked to increase the hostility of the cold war (according to what I have read of Gehlin's network).

Many high ranking staff members from the propaganda ministry turned up in the Middle East (especially Egypt, where former SS men were training the Egyptian military), changed their names to Arabic sounding ones, and continued to publish virulent anti-semetic literature. Others hung around with Peron in Argentina and Skorzeny in Spain.

Germans who repudiated Hitler and Nazism had their pensions chopped. Many German officers who opposed Hitler are still viewed as traitors.

I believe Ernst Remer, the officer who put down the coup attempt in Berlin and a leading figure on the pro-nazi scene in Germany (he dead yet?), believes America is the enemy, as it is a 'mongrel' nation filled with 'half-breeds', and that the true ally of Germany is the pure white nation of Russia.

Go figure.

I really don't think much of the SS, I'm afraid. Nor am I aware of any countries invaded by Denmark or Luxembourg, although the Dutch and Belgians had a good deal of blood on their hands.

The concentration camps were set up in the 30's. No death camps were established until after the Wansee conference in 1941.

Hitler ordered all human rights on the Eastern Front in relation to prisoners and civilians suspended, against the protestation of many generals. I believe some even resigned in protest.

The Germans didn't take Leningrad because they didn't want to feed the population: Hitler wanted to starve them to death by the millions. Much the same reasoning was behind spiking the sanitation systems in Ukranian cities. They wanted to spread disease and thin out the inferiors.

In realpolitik all kinds of awful things are done. Some go beyond the pale of even that, and I think the excesses of Nazi Germany were pretty extreme, to put it mildly, even in comparison to Britain, which was no saint itself.

[Guest aka PanzerLeader]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Germans didn't take Leningrad because they didn't want to feed the population: Hitler wanted to starve them to death by the millions. Much the same reasoning was behind spiking the sanitation systems in Ukranian cities. They wanted to spread disease and thin out the inferiors.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh no, how wrong you are.

Leningrad, had it been slightly less defended, would have been taken by the Germans in August-Sept.41. In fact the city was very important strategically, it was the last grasp the Soviets had on the Baltic Sea and I believe it was also a great production center.

The reason the city was besieged is of a military nature. Hitler was at that stage extremely afraid of city fighting after he had heard about the new remote-controlled bomb charges that the Russians had used to great effect earlier in Kiev. So, instead of wearing out the 18.Armee and the precious 4.PanzerArmee in costly city fighting, he thought he could do things quicker by starving out the city. Or rather, the city's defenders. After Hoepner's Panzers were diverted south for a more important goal(Moscow), the city could no longer be stormed.

Believe me, in the late summer of '41 Hitler still thought he could win the military campaign; so had he been presented Leningrad on a plate, he would have taken it.

[Stoffel]

Fion I have read your reply and I must react on them.

One of the elite units of the waffen-ss was the 3rd division(Totenkopf)

This division emerged out of the Totenkopfverbande.

These were units responsible for the camps and they were under command of Eicke.

They were responsible for the atrocities committed in Poland and France.

Even when they were later in the war transformed into a panzerdivision,they kept close ties with the camps.

The camps were their biggest source for supplies and were used as a place where wounded soldiers could rest.

If you have read Soldiers of Destruction you know that there are numerous accounts that prove what I just wrote down is true

There are even documents that showed there was a constant flow of men from the camps to frontunits and vice versa.

Most of the men in these units were brainwashed to follow up all orders given.

Eicke did this by letting his men beat up and torchure inmates on a regular bases infact men that refused were in some cases imprisoned or in some cases even shot.

There were pretty tough and harsh rules about discipline and Eicke had a list of punishments for everything that was against the discipline or worse against the state.

If I had been a soldier than I would probably to have followed up orders even if I had known what I know now.Does that make me a nazi to or is saving your own live more important at such a moment in your live.

I don't think that the generations from after the war are responsible for what their fathers or grandfathers have done.

Like panzeshark said before,my country has killed many people in its colonies even after ww2.

My countrymen were the "best" in slavery.

Infact all places where we have had interests in (U.S.),South AFrica,and some countries in asia) have racial problems.

That in a way can be linked back to my Dutch ancestors.

Should I feel sorry for that Or do I have to be ashamed for that?

You could only blame the generations responcible for it and be carefull such things don't happen again.

Even today among most of the youth in The Netherlands is a big hatred and misunderstanding about Germans.

These feelings are caused by old sentiments and nationalist thinking and in most cases a lack of historical education.

Many of these kids don't even know in what year our country was invaded by the Nazis.

About anti us sentiments?

SOme places still know a high degree of anti foreignersfeelings

Most Germans did not like NATO soldiers in their country(and we were there to defend them in a certain way)they saw them as a sort of occupationforce.(in 1988,43 years after the war!)

We had to be very carefull and were forbidden to speak with most people in the villages we came trough during exercises.And again I think that it is a natural reaction.

Anyway I had to say it and for most things I wrote down these are my personal thoughts on the subject and I take full reponsability for that.

STOFFEL

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stoffel:

Most Germans did not like NATO soldiers in their country(and we were there to defend them in a certain way)they saw them as a sort of occupationforce.(in 1988,43 years after the war!)

We had to be very carefull and were forbidden to speak with most people in the villages we came trough during exercises.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Stoffel, I was in the Federal Airforce in 1988-9, and the only Dutch soldier I ever hated was the Lieutenant-Colonel who during a TACEVAL exercise decided that my truck had struck a mine, my gunner had stepped on one and who then made us stay in the rain. The UK Colonel OTOH was very nice, he gave me a nice intestinal wound and I could go and die in a corner for not being treated...

But honestly, I am quite surprised to hear this, I never thought of the English soldiers who were stationed in our vicinity (Nienburg/Weser) as an occupying force. Also the GIs on our airbase were quite well-liked in the local community. My parents still go to the New Year's reception of the US garrison commander in Worms. It is considered a big social event and only important people (and my parents) get to go. Interesting that you were told not to talk too much.

------------------

Andreas

[thomasj]

Well here comes my 2 cents worth. I'll try to keep it short. For the most part I don't understand why we are talking about this, we as NATO created the entire scenario for this to happen. No one would ever, now that we understand what we did, would ever again create a treaty like the Treat of Versiles(SP?) again, unless we forget our errors, then we a doomed to repeat. Do we feel shame for that treaty? I don't think so, does Germany hold grudges on NATO? Again, I don't think so. I spent 9 years stationed in Germany as a US soldier assigned to the 1st Armored Division, even trained with the Bundewehr on several occasions and servered with German troops in numerous hostile areas on occasion(gulf,bosnia,warsaw-changeover,prep for kosavo).

I am now a civilian and living in The Netherlands, and have continued my history research on the war getting yet another nations views on the War. I couldn't even begin to type everything in this message I would like to because of the sheer volume of typing involved, but anytime anyone here wants to visit Europe and talk or even call, I will be more then happy to talk about my first hand experiences and research if they want to know more than one side of the story, and the bottom line is just that, We as Americans have one side to the story, the Germans are just now starting to really look into their war history(they were not allowed to for many years!) and have their side, the Dutch, the French, etc etc........all have a side to the story, but when you hear many of them and start piecing together the similarities and removing the nonsense you start to see the entire picture and it's not pretty. We as a unified fighting force on WW1 failed to bring peace because of a seriously flawed treaty! Victors write the history books and they are extremly watered down version of the truth. How would you feel in any country that just lost a war, and when you surrender, the vistors take land you owned even before the war started and demand that you pay reperations to all the countries that were involved in the war. Land equals population, population equals taxes, which in turn is jobs and income, but after the WW1 Germany was broke, and people were starving until change came, and that change gave them jobs, food......etc.

No it was not right what happened but.....

Sorry, This is too long already. said my 2 cents......if you want more let me know.

Same thing could have happened in ANY Country in those conditions, BOTTOM LINE!

Food for thought----What's the penalty for treason in the US? Now think of the actions commited by a nation of people inside the nation of Germny during WW1.

I do not myslef agree with the methods taken but think about the treason part. Didn't really learn much about that until talking to lots of Dutch veterans.....

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, my two cents worth...

I think there is, in Germany, resentment towards NATO "occupation". However, I think it has less to do with WWII than it does with outside forces having a daily impact on the local population (depending on the area). Compounding this, or perhaps causing, is that military forces in peacetime offten cause stress within the community they are stationed in. This is as true for domestic as well as foreign troops. The thing is in Germany most of the troops are foreign, so that adds to the problem.

What I mean is soldiers fight, drink, and visit prostitutes. OK, generalization, but it is something that happens and is more easy to point the finger at than civilians because of the uniforms and obvious affiliation with a specific organization. There is also the military hardware. Ever seen a German town after a mechanized unit has done manuvers? Fields torn up, roads damaged, and sometimes property (saw a nice picture of a M60 that plowed into a shop for example). Then there is planes and such flying low and fast compared to commercial aircraft (I heard some elder Germans comment on this, negatively, when on the Rhein). And obviously there was the whole issue of tactical nuclear weapons that caused such a stir in the 1970s and early 80s.

And as for this bit from Major Tom:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The moral of the argument was, an INDIVIDUAL'S goodness is irrelavent when they are taking part in achieving a greater evil. This is the argument that Germanboy is trying to stress. It doesn't make the INDIVIDUAL evil, but, it also doesn't make their actions GOOD.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see things quite as black and white as this, but I do agree far more with Andreas' point of view than Fionn's. Soldiers *do* bear a responsibility for their actions as they fit into the whole. The simple fact is that Hitler could not have caused the death and destruction upon Germany's neighbors without the Army. Plain and simple. And therefore, because the Army was THE MOST IMPORTANT instrument in facilitating the crimes it should be blamed. The leadership of the Army far too willingly let themselves be the tool of Hitler even when it blatently went against their traditions and code of ethics. And unfortunately, this trickled down to the lowest levels of command. While the average German soldier probably didn't do something unusually criminal, his obediance to his nation allowed others to do plenty of crimes. In US legal terms this is called an "accessory to the crime". There are various forms of this charge, and therefore degrees of guilt, but as the old saying goes... ignorance is no excuse. The average German soldier should feel some degree of shame as should any soldier whose indirect actions allowed the direct actions of others to murder, plunder, and destroy. The degree of shame should be proportional to the degree of active participation. But nobody should get off scott free.

Steve

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by thomasj:

Now think of the actions commited by a nation of people inside the nation of Germny during WW1.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am sorry, but I have no idea what you might be talking about. Who was that, the Spartakists?

------------------

Andreas